Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:02:53 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> Cc: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoconf update Message-ID: <4C93048D.9090802@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com> References: <4C91446F.3090202@bsdforen.de> <20100916171744.GA48415@hades.panopticon> <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de> <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17/09/2010 00:35, Anonymous wrote: > Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> writes: > >> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: >>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamikaze@bsdforen.de) wrote: >>> >>>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build >>>> dependency? >>>> >>>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any >>>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding >>>> all the software improves it. >>>> >>>> This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I don't >>>> understand and that worries me. > > My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't catch. > Example is the breakage of databases/postgresql84-server + WITH_ICU. > >>> I second the question. Revision bump seem absolutely unnecessary. >> >> There was the sweeping commit reason in another thread. >> > >> But I don't really think it would have been a sweeping commit if >> it weren't for the version bump. > > Did you forget that autoconf262 was removed? I don't get it. I've been really dumb a couple of times lately. Maybe that's it. So if you have the patience, explain it like you would to a dumb person. Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C93048D.9090802>